I'd like to propose a 4th option:
Address the easy questions first, and check them off the to-do list. Then,
address the complex and controversial ones, and get through as many as we
can in the allotted time.
I suspect that we'll be more motivated to close the difficult issues if we
know that they are all that stands between us and publication, rather than
having a bunch of other work still to do once they're closed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:18 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Agenda
Thursday, 23 August, 20:00 UTC, 4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 6 AM
Australia Eastern, on +1-617-252-1038:
The purpose of the meeting is to establish a process for working
systematically through our list of open issues:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-issues.html
There are several issues identified as having proposed resolutions and
it might be easiest to start with those. The available options for
addressing open issues include:
1. Working through the document from start to finish, addressing
issues as we proceed.
2. Addressing particularly complex or contentious issues first, and
then examining more detailed questions of wording and individual
checkpoints.
3. A mixture of the above (in each meeting, discussing some complex
issues and also disposing of a few less difficult ones).
Some of the issues are already documented in the draft itself as notes
for reviewers.
Apart from determining how best to deal with the open issues, we
should also begin the process of actually addressing them.